MPA STP 2013 Memory4Handwriting copy.graffle
Memory for Typed Vs. Handwritten Words
ABSTRACT
6
8
Overall, participants remembered a mean of 16.44 words (82.2%) and misremembered a mean of 1.19 (5.9%) per list. A repeated measures omnibus ANOVA found no significant difference between typing or handwriting on recognition, F(1, 200) = 1.092 although performance declined over each trial, F(1, 200) = 0.213, p < 0.01.
1
2
3
CONCLUSIONS
4
Figure 2. Performance declined over trials in both studies (data shown from study 2).
6 4 2 0
Mean number of words recalled
8
Sixty-three percent preferred to print when they handwrite. The majority (67%) had never typed notes during a class lecture.
4
But there are other possibilities. Encoding specificity principle predicts that remembering will be best when the context of retrieval matches the context of learning (Thomson & Tulving, 1973). The levels-of-processing effect (Craik & Tulving, 1975) predicts that both handwriting and typing are rather shallow non-meaningful methods for study, and neither would be particularly beneficial to recall.
31 undergraduates listened to 4 lists of 20 concrete and abstract nouns spoken once every 5 seconds. Participants rehearsed words by writing or typing, counterbalanced across participants. 30-second distractor tasks were used after each list to minimize the recency effect. Participants were then asked to recognize as many of the words on a list of 40 words.
2
It’s commonly believed that handwriting verbal material makes it more memorable, as expressed by bloggers online (e.g. Pinola, 2011). Some famous authors (J. K. Rowling, Arthur Philips) handwrite novels before typing them. However, more students are typing their notes. Is there any truth to the belief that handwritten notes are more memorable? Nearly all research on handwriting is focused on the development of letter patterns (Connelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007) or the usefulness of note-taking during lectures (e.g., Di Vesta & Gray, 1972).
STUDY 1
0
INTRODUCTION
Darrell S. Rudmann, Shawnee State University
Mean number of words recalled
Does handwriting words create a stronger memory of them? In two studies, 63 undergraduates rehearsed words by typing or handwriting and completed recognition or recall tests. No difference between type of rehearsal was found, implying that the choice of whether to type or handwrite is a matter of preference.
handwriting
typing
Figure 1. Participants recalled more words typing than printing.
STUDY 2 In this study, 32 undergraduates recalled list words. Half of the participants typed their answers and half printed their answers. Overall, participants recalled an average of 5.83 words correctly and 0.49 incorrect words per list. An omnibus ANOVA found no differences for correctly recalled words by type of rehearsal, F(1, 245) = 1.704 nor for an interaction between rehearsal and output, F(1, 245) = 0.148 as encoding specificity theory would expect. However, whether they typed or printed was significantly different, F(1, 245) = 23.621, p < 0.001 (see Figure 1). No difference was found for incorrectly recalled words by rehearsal type, F(1, 117) = 2.101, or by whether they typed or printed, F(1, 117) = 2.610 (see Figure 2).
While handwriting is natural for many adults, these studies did not find evidence that handwriting provides a memory benefit. Additionally, typing as a method of rehearsal did not produce additional errors (study 2). From the perspective of the levelsof-processing effect, both the handwriting and typing modes of rehearsal represent relatively shallow rehearsal methods, since neither taps into the semantic meaning of the words themselves. If so, then the choice of handwriting or typing notes is mostly a matter of preference. Presumably typing carries a lighter cognitive load and as a result can be helpful when recalling information, regardless of how it was learned. However, this manipulation was between-groups and may be a by-product of the convenience sample.
REFERENCES Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 181-192. Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479-492. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294. Pinola, M. (2011). Why you learn more effectively by writing than typing. http://lifehacker.com/5738093/why-you-learn-more-effectively-bywriting-than-typing Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2011. Thomson, D., & Tulving, E. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory, Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
ABSTRACT
6
8
Overall, participants remembered a mean of 16.44 words (82.2%) and misremembered a mean of 1.19 (5.9%) per list. A repeated measures omnibus ANOVA found no significant difference between typing or handwriting on recognition, F(1, 200) = 1.092 although performance declined over each trial, F(1, 200) = 0.213, p < 0.01.
1
2
3
CONCLUSIONS
4
Figure 2. Performance declined over trials in both studies (data shown from study 2).
6 4 2 0
Mean number of words recalled
8
Sixty-three percent preferred to print when they handwrite. The majority (67%) had never typed notes during a class lecture.
4
But there are other possibilities. Encoding specificity principle predicts that remembering will be best when the context of retrieval matches the context of learning (Thomson & Tulving, 1973). The levels-of-processing effect (Craik & Tulving, 1975) predicts that both handwriting and typing are rather shallow non-meaningful methods for study, and neither would be particularly beneficial to recall.
31 undergraduates listened to 4 lists of 20 concrete and abstract nouns spoken once every 5 seconds. Participants rehearsed words by writing or typing, counterbalanced across participants. 30-second distractor tasks were used after each list to minimize the recency effect. Participants were then asked to recognize as many of the words on a list of 40 words.
2
It’s commonly believed that handwriting verbal material makes it more memorable, as expressed by bloggers online (e.g. Pinola, 2011). Some famous authors (J. K. Rowling, Arthur Philips) handwrite novels before typing them. However, more students are typing their notes. Is there any truth to the belief that handwritten notes are more memorable? Nearly all research on handwriting is focused on the development of letter patterns (Connelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007) or the usefulness of note-taking during lectures (e.g., Di Vesta & Gray, 1972).
STUDY 1
0
INTRODUCTION
Darrell S. Rudmann, Shawnee State University
Mean number of words recalled
Does handwriting words create a stronger memory of them? In two studies, 63 undergraduates rehearsed words by typing or handwriting and completed recognition or recall tests. No difference between type of rehearsal was found, implying that the choice of whether to type or handwrite is a matter of preference.
handwriting
typing
Figure 1. Participants recalled more words typing than printing.
STUDY 2 In this study, 32 undergraduates recalled list words. Half of the participants typed their answers and half printed their answers. Overall, participants recalled an average of 5.83 words correctly and 0.49 incorrect words per list. An omnibus ANOVA found no differences for correctly recalled words by type of rehearsal, F(1, 245) = 1.704 nor for an interaction between rehearsal and output, F(1, 245) = 0.148 as encoding specificity theory would expect. However, whether they typed or printed was significantly different, F(1, 245) = 23.621, p < 0.001 (see Figure 1). No difference was found for incorrectly recalled words by rehearsal type, F(1, 117) = 2.101, or by whether they typed or printed, F(1, 117) = 2.610 (see Figure 2).
While handwriting is natural for many adults, these studies did not find evidence that handwriting provides a memory benefit. Additionally, typing as a method of rehearsal did not produce additional errors (study 2). From the perspective of the levelsof-processing effect, both the handwriting and typing modes of rehearsal represent relatively shallow rehearsal methods, since neither taps into the semantic meaning of the words themselves. If so, then the choice of handwriting or typing notes is mostly a matter of preference. Presumably typing carries a lighter cognitive load and as a result can be helpful when recalling information, regardless of how it was learned. However, this manipulation was between-groups and may be a by-product of the convenience sample.
REFERENCES Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 181-192. Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479-492. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294. Pinola, M. (2011). Why you learn more effectively by writing than typing. http://lifehacker.com/5738093/why-you-learn-more-effectively-bywriting-than-typing Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2011. Thomson, D., & Tulving, E. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory, Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
